DxO Optics Pro 8: What's New

Optics Pro 8 features a more streamlined user interface for PC users (shown here) and a more efficient tool palette arrangement on both Windows and Mac platforms.

DxO Optics Pro 8 is the newest version of DxO Labs' raw editing software. Optics Pro combines image organization and management with a wealth of editing and optical correction tools and the ability to batch process your camera's native raw files into TIFF, JPEG and DNG file formats. While Optics Pro 8 isn't a dramatic upgrade from version 7, it does introduce a new automated tonal recovery tool and print capability along with a revised user interface and image editing enhancements. In this very brief overview I'll highlight the most significant changes for current users. In an upcoming article we'll be taking a much more detailed look at image quality, workflow and output options as we compare Optics Pro 8 against Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 and Phase One's Capture One Pro 7.

Among the changes users will find in version 8 are a reorganized palette layout that puts the most commonly used editing tools in close proximity, a new highlight and shadow recovery tool, sliders for localized tonal adjustments and a 'smart' saturation option, which treats colors differently depending on their vibrancy. Version 8 also introduces a basic print module with support for single and multi-image layouts along with automated output sharpening tuned for the specified print size.

The modular approach

Although this overview is aimed primarily at current Optics Pro users, it's worth taking a moment to highlight DxO's modular approach to automated optical corrections. DxO Optics Pro's central appeal to raw shooting enthusiasts revolves around the use of lens-specific modules (see below) that provide detailed information about the optical performance of any supported camera/lens combination. This means the software can perform automated corrections for lens distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration and corner softness based on data that DxO has obtained from testing their sample of the given body/lens combination.

Optics modules are available for download within the application (see above). And once installed, any images from a camera/lens combination for which an optics module exists will have corrections applied automatically. The downside to such a lens-specific approach is that if you have a lens which is not supported in combination with your camera body, you'll have to apply these optical corrections manually, offering little practical benefit over using competing raw converters. For a complete list of currently supported camera/lens combinations, please visit the supported equipment page of DxO's site.

New Features

In Optics Pro 8, DxO has sought to address issues related both to productivity and of course image quality. In this overview we'll take a brief look at the following features and enhancements:

Comments

DxO version 8 doesn't feel like a huge upgrade over 7, but they have done a good job of giving simple controls that give great results quickly. Your preferred settings can be saved to a preset.

How much is your time worth?

As for the upgrade pricing, it's less than the retail price, although I wouldn't mind if it was cheaper. Compare it with the other software I use, Corel's Paint Shop Pro: the upgrade pricing is so silly, it's often just as cheap to buy it at full retail, if I can find it on discount. I just looked up Lightroom upgrade, and I paid less for DxO's (since I don't need the Elite version and caught them when they released the update when they put it on sale).

If the price is so burdonsome, go use one of many free RAW converters -- UFRaw, Raw Therapee, etc.

Adobe never gave me the rebate I submitted. Do I go on forums and post multiple messages about it? ;-) So if you want to make service the issue, I'm sure you can find poor service from time to time anywhere.

Wow i'm only seeing negative things about DxO i use Aperture and it works great no problems here.The pictures of the red Ferraris look really orange is that what you get if you shoot nikon?.........Aperture is only $79.00 in addition get Pixelmator for$20 and tour set.If you have a pc stick to light room it's not bad ...

I'm sorry to hear that. Version 8 performances are normally similar to version 7 performances.

Here are some hints :

- check that the version 7 (if still installed on your computer) is quicker within the same configuration (same image, with same correction settings ...)

- Please make sure that you have not activated in the preference tab some options that slow the application. For exemple, in version 8, we added the possibility to see the noise reduction at any level of zoom. (in version 7, you needed to be at least at 75%).

If you don't get satisfaction, don't hesitate to write to the customer support.(http://support.dxo.com/home )

This company will take your last penny.They are hopelessly delayed in their development of modules.Leica and Sigma cameras are without any support.They have no customer service.Never answer any inquiry.They sell updates of their software as new versions for full retail.There is still no update for Version 7 because they plan to cash in again around x-maswith "version 8"... as they do every year.It is shameless !

Looks like you come here like a hurrican and try to blast everything :)

well, let me try to answer because it is a bit easy to write what you say ...

- "delay in modules". We never commit on modules, we give an idea on our website. Priorities are always changing as they are based on our customer needs. If you have a camera / lens that no one use, I think that you can understand that you won't be served first...

- Leica, Sigma : they are clearly not our priority. At DxO, we only want to deliver the best in Image Quality. this is the reason why we calibrate in our labs all the lens / camera combination. Quality has a cost and we can focus on brand like Leica and Sigma only after dealing with Canon, Nikon, Sony... as they represent the most part of the market. I think everyone can understand.

- never answer any inquiry --> Ok, please provide me the opened ticket number that you have so I can check with the customer service. If you didn't get any ticket number, it means that your inquiry was never sent / received by our customer service.

This is not a personal vendetta against Oli,who is probably only the paid help of this outfitwho now has to answer to all of this.

Certainly more transparency would help.I use this product and I see it's potential.I just can't agree to their "French" modus operandi.

They are a privately owned company and a such they are probably not used to answer to shareholders.But that should not give them the impression that we are not watchful in regards to what kind of business practice they engage in.

So far I am not impressed !... moreover as per today they prove again that they don't keep to anything they say - but change things just as they please.

I use both LR4 and DOP8. I have a long history with DOP and about 6 months with LR. A few points:Both are useful but have different strengths. LR of course offers local adjustments, and a fair ingestion engine. DxO offers notably more accurate distortion correction and and an easier/faster work-flow for images that are in good shape straight out of the camera.

DOP8 is a significant upgrade to DOP7 but in ways that DxO isn't likely to admit. It's the most stable version of DOP since version 5. Version 7 would fall over in all sorts of ways. DOP8 has been rock solid for me.

Secondly I strongly suspect that most of the code is new, which bodes well for future versions. Importantly the sometimes odd colour handling, especially with more extreme settings, is a thing of the past. The new DxO lighting control is easier to use than in previous version and yields more natural looking results.

DOP8 is well worth having along with LR4, especially for architecture and Urbex.

Lightroom 4 as a complete package was on sale for $75 during thanksgiving in the US.

The DXO upgrade from v7 elite to v8 elite is $99 US. Even during promotion period it was $69.

So a DXO upgrade cost the same or more than the LR4 complete package.

Not to mention starting with LR4, LR actually understand Nikon colors better than DXO. With DXO you usually have to start with ViewNX/CNX conversion to TIFF, and then run the TIFFs through DXO to fix the geometric distortion or perspective distortion. LR / ACR is now close enough to do it in one shot.

That said if one was a jpeg shooter (majority of the time) the colours look great in DXO from my D700. I did notice a difference in colour if importing raw NEFs though. I really do like the Jpeg colours in DXO and if you shoot to prevent overexposure jpegs from FF work great, you certainly can apply geometric and distortion corrections and I can also apply the HDR lighting settings to DXO jpegs well. With your statements have you actually tried the DXO software or is this opinions from other sources. NEF in DXO is doable I just adjust colour temperatures etc. for acceptable results. It works. DXO is a great product. Cost is only relative to advantages of functionality and DXO has lots. My many clients love the final colours of DXO images. I prefer the customizable interface on DXO more than LR and I own both.

I recently purchased a D600 and am not pleased with the color reproduction of my RAW files in Lightroom. Can anyone speak to this? Would this program be a better match and produce better color results? I'm using the default VIEW NX from Nikon but really do not like the limitations. It however produces fantastic results of my RAW images. Anyway, anyone have any experience with this? Thanks!

From what I remember reading and also trying out with my D700 files is that the embedded picture style settings in the Raw files are accessible through View NX and Capture NX but not from other raw converters, unless this has changed. Colour is somewhat different from the Magrath colour charts from incamera Jpeg to Raw. See the colour page on D700 review with dpreview archives to see what I mean. I shoot both Jpeg and Raw and often like the Jpeg better due to nicer colours to start with and picture settings applied including more dynamic range already expanded from ADL setting.

Local dodging brush adjustments, I keep hoping they will eventually add to software. However, I have been using it since DXO Pro 4.9 and now have 8.0 and on the 27inch iMac with lots of Ram and i7 processor, this software is fast. I prefer it over Lightroom. DXO has its personal palettes you can set up your favourite correction modules in sequence order on both sides of 27 inch screen, so little to no scrolling so changes can be quick and easy. You can set up presets so when you import images, some things are already done or turned on in import (or turned off ) and the rest you can do manually.

Automatic noise reduction and auto sharpening on import images applies to specific lens and camera modules you setup and you can change these settings as well to a new default if you wish (ie. lower the noise reduction settings for example). In my opinion, most new users would likely appreciate its many advantages if they used it for a month or so, however it is still easy to learn.

DXO v8 is an important version. It's the first time they've released a major release in under a year, and made the free upgrade amnesty under a month.

It was already a bit suspicious when they jumped from v7.0x to v7.5 suddenly with no significant changes and still many unfixed bugs. It's obvious they want to move to a defacto subscription model here.

A lot of users bought and used v7 for 2-3months before v8 was announced. June 2012 was when v7.5x was starting to become stable, and hence a lot of people were buying. Now an incremental update and DXO asking for more cash? You can imagine a lot of loyal customers are no longer...

The important thing to note is that camera body support is version specific. While an owner of PS CS1 can use the new ACR to decode new camera RAW formats, a DXO user is forced to buy the latest version.

DxO Labs' V8 upgrade offer was not free, it was only a discount and it ended just two weeks after it was announced. I purchased V7.5 earlier this year and now DxO Labs is expecting me to pay full price for an upgrade in less than a year. I consider that predatory pricing and an insult to existing users.

I am DXO user from version 6 through 7. I appreciate their idea of composing body and lens and give you the best image from this pair. I underestand that it is very expensive attitude so they have to have money for all tests.

I have tested DXO 8 for some time. I agree with many of you that it is not worth money for upgrade (even during the promotion). It is also not worth a number 8. It is 7.someting.

Guys at DXO have so many things to do with this software to be worth its price for a new version: Interface still can't benefit dual screen stations (you cannot dock palletes on the second screen nor size image browser (it is too wide)Print module is rather betaNew tools are limited

Many enterprise software houses (Symantec, EMC, Oracle for example) have the annual price for maintanance. It is something between 20 and 30% of initial purchase price. I thing it is more fair than DXO tactic of releasing "new version" each year and saying that you have to pay for this "revolution".

On the first look it looks like a minor upgrade, not worth $100 for Elite version upgrade.But the biggest issue I have now is that I don't trust them any more.With DxO the whole meaning of fast, automatic workflow with minimum involvement and very good end results is based on modules. So when I bought v.7 more than one year ago the module for one of my favourite lens was almost out. Then it was postponed to 10/2012, and in 10/2012 was postponed again to 2013. That is more than one year delay for one of the most used mFT lens - the Panansonic 14mm f/2.5 pancake.So if modul for some of your equipment is on the planned list, don't take that too seriously. A shame but true.

I quite agree. I think the wait for the 14mm module has been quite a bit longer than that. What makes the wait even more bizarre is that the 14mm+body has been a standard offering from Panasonic since (at least) the GF2.

I only use the 14mm + 20mm so it's extremely frustrating to have DxO's particular benefits only available for some pics.

The list you are refering to is provided solely for informational purposes but I can perfectly understand that you are not happy.We always try to do more and more modules. Approx 10.000 modules are available (5.000 made in 2012). The priority of the roadmap is made based on different factors. One of them is the number of people asking for the module.So if you have not vote yet, you can tell DxO that you want your lens to be supported, it could help.

Oh, all these Lr4 fanboys...This is not about how the programmes measure against each other, it's about which one suits your photographic style and your equipment better. As for me, having bought Pro 7 last June and tried V8, there's no way back. V8 brings two extraordinary improvements over the previous version: smart lighting and selective tone. Now DxO provides the kind of control I experienced when I demo'ed Lr4, plus the great optical and geometric corrections which Adobe can only dream of. It's better for me - for my style and my gear -, but others may think otherwise. If Lr4 suited me better, I'd have bought it instead. No point in saying X is better than Y based solely on objective criteria.People complain a lot about DxO's interface: well, Lr4 might be more intuitive and a bit faster, but it all goes down the drain as it takes ages to complete the final processing stage. At least that's what I found.

I'm talking about saving a 50MB raw to full size jpg in no more than 6 seconds with all Lightroom adjustments, what are you talking about? The lengthy grind of the DXO "processing" save to jpg with the green bar?I have an i7 with 8GB.

I do think this is a very good upgrade to DXO. There always seems to be a mixed bag with the DXO upgrades. There has been NO converter IMHO that has better color for Nikon than Capture NX2, but the interface and crashes suck. The price is too high with Nikon's greedy pricing and forget about ever getting timely updates. They should include it or at least give a substantial discount. This new DXO upgrade has made things easier for me by improving the color, saturation and recovery (in my landscapes) and making it so easy to create presets. I don't include noise or sharpening in my DXO presets.

On my re-dos, I have improved most of my old shots regardless of how I had processed them previoulsy. Compared to LR, they both have their strong points and weaknesses. To me, the "auto lens correction" in LR sucks. No matter what I do, the the DXO corrections always seem to be much better! Now I use LR more for my cataloging, DXO or ACR for conversion and NIK for noise sharpening, and efex.

Once I would have agreed with you but having recently tried Capture 1 I'm changing my mind and that's using their older '6' version. Apparently, v7 is better still and worth downloading the 30 day trial. The downside is that it's expensive.

This is a bit off topic but so many respondees here are obviously very experienced on this topic of post-processing, so I'd like to ask for your help. I use a Mac and was intending to buy Aperture to go with my upcoming purchase of the Panny GH3. I read comparisons of Aperture and Lightroom and there didn't seem a lot in it. But after reading your comments here, I see Aperture isn't included along with the Big 3 for a future head-to-head review. Why is this?

I agree, I tried a trail version of 7 and it was like something Olympus like interface. After using LR4 for a while, DoX was just odd. But I wouldn't discount them if I the result are better. Too bad the rial version is over, I'll stick with LR4 and get Capture 3 whenever that comes out

Wow, STILL no DNG support? Wow, they REALLY don't like DNG. Oh well. I wrote them asking them about that after having converted a number of images to DNG and discarding my RAW files and they wrote back rather crassly something along the lines of 'well, serves you right!'. They have a big beef against the DNG format.

I've been using DxO for years and v8 is a very minor upgrade -- basically v7 with a nicer GUI and some new features. I personally like the way DxO does conversion -- I find it quite natural. I use their default setting for most images unless I want to bias it towards highlights or shadows. It does a remarkable job preserving the last bit of highlights if you specify such bias in the highlight settings. I agree with an earlier poster that if you are looking for HDR (which is what he was describing), DxO is not the best of the bunch. What I find makes for the best such images is to create two versions of the same picture -- one biased for highlights and one biased for shadows (saving each in differently named folders) then combine them myself in Photoshop to match my own "look". Unfortunately, there is no way to do this with a single click in DxO. Hopefully they might add such a feature in the future.

simple example: i move a dot on the curve and want to see if it s better or not.as it is now i will ctrl+Z. dxo will re-render last preview... i wait ... if i ctrl+y, again dxo will re-render the preview of something that was done 10sec ago!! wtf? how much time would we save if you simply cache the last 2 previews? photoshop can ctrl+Z until the end of times with no freeze, why can't we do a 2steps toggle in less than 5sec? implement this plz! that s not hard work.

and i can't talk for everybody, but i would like this feature as a toggle on the image clic. because see the original pic, i want to do it maybe twice in the process. see last step preview i want to do it 50times per image. to me this default toggle between original image and last setting is just some boasting toy, not something really usefull.

I agree with castleofargh... you used to be able to single mouse-click between current view and the original just by mouse-clicking on the image being worked on at the time. This is a critical feature to have back.

I was a true follower of all their prime, gold, platinum versions what’s so ever named.

In detailed comparisons I detected that their claim never could reach the original raw converters as from Olympus, Nikon, Canon, or Sigma. The noise reduction algorithms from DxO ruined many of my landscape tonalities. The parallel processing took eternities. The program’s hung ups were legend.

I found them a marketing gag with no substance. DxO quietly died away from my workstations about one year ago.

I've had the same experience with Nikon Capture. I suspect that the camera manufacturer's raw converters take into account the noise characteristics of the camera, something that '3rd party' software is unable to do.

Our goal at DxO is to provide you with Image Quality superior than any other brand you have mentionned. So, I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with the version you used.

If you have some time for a new try, I would suggest you to download the trial of version 8. In case there is something that goes wrong on your images, I would recommand you to report the information to the technical hotline team -they will be welcome to help you.

At DxO, we measure all the cameras output both in RAW and JPEG in all the settings conditions. Hence, we take into account all the noise characteristics of the camera.(I assume that the camera is supported by DxO Optics Pro)

I used DxO 7 for a long time, and took the time to learn the meaning and fine details of all of the complicated controls, but something about the tonality was never right.

The before and after -pictures of the white boats show exactly what I had problems with; the after-picture looks like s**t. It unnatural, and in DxO, no matter how much you tweak, every time you want to lift shadows or bring down highlights, and/or increase contrast, that happens. There is no way to make it look natural without clipping one of the two, it has a weird grunge look to it. Eventually I tried Lightroom, and was instantly converted. That same boat picture in Lightroom would look great, with the entire dynamic range used, yet contrasty and punchy. Probably many other software would fare fine too, but DxO just cant compress dynamic range and look natural.

I think you've put your finger on it right there. Tonality is a hit your gut or miss proposition, and DXO cannot hold a candle to LR4 in that department, to say nothing of the dozens of extra clicks one needs to produce a finished product. I keep waiting for DXO to get better, because I like the geometry correction, but so far they've been highly resistant to change.

No, it's not. That's why I just switched to Capture One after test-driving both new releases for some days. Capture One is way faster. That's with a GTX 580 and OpenCL enabled. SSD vs. disk makes not much difference in UI reponsiveness from my testing.

This is quite near the point I'm most interested in: performance. LR4 can do pretty much all I want to do but it's a resource hog and sometimes stalls, wondering if DxO Optics is any better. FYI I run an average PC of Quad CPU / 8GB / 460GTX / SSD.

@sodacan i m afraid it will be at best the same. that depends mostly on what default settings you will use. but as optical tools will always be used in dxo and not that much or after manually in LR, you will tend to have more processing for each preview in dxo from the beginning. and so more lag.

you should test the trial version of dxo, it s a complete version, not a light one. so you really see what you would pay for.

The printing feature is totally pathetic compared with what is available in other programs such as ACDSee. You cannot add a header or a footer to proof sheets. And there is very little customization of file name, appearance, etc. Definitely something I would never use.

The only reason I can see for me to pay the "upgrade" price for version 8 is if it eventually supports my new Nex 6 camera. But I don't see why I should have to pay $99 just because they have made the choice to force you to pay for a new version mostly just to get camera support. This should never have been considered a new version in my opinion... the changes just don't mount up to much more than window dressing and a useless very basic printing feature.

I've been begging DXO to give me back the features and project efficiency of version 6 with the support for my 5D III and Nex 6. But they say I must move on to new versions even if I feel I they are taking me backwards in efficiency.

I've been using DXO for a long time. I have benn pretty upset that version 7 and version 8 have removed some useful features that were in version 6. The usability in "Projects" mode is not as good either.

That being said I compared version 8 with version 7 and don't see much reason to upgrade. The interface looks better but has not added any new features... other than some automated exposure and lighting (HDR) controls that I would never use in place of the manual controls. I could not see any difference in image quality and I was carefully studying both programs side by side using identical settings in each one.

I keep my opinion (see previous reply): I will not give, again, $69,00 for an upgrade to a software that to me is a mess. Since I bought version 6 ($199,00) and paid $ 69,00 for the upgrade to 7, I used it exactly 2 (two) time. No, gentlemen, no $69,00 for it. My main photo editing software are PS, Nik and Topaz.

I am very aggravated that DXO requires a second version ("Elite") to be able to use my Canon 5DII. Is there any other RAW processing program that requires a more expensive version to allow functionality with a FF camera?Also, as mentioned the printing module is less than adequate.Les

Just a few lines to explain the difference between Standard and Elite editions.

At DxO, we measure every combination of Lens and Camera in order to create the DxO Optics Module. We have about 6 labs in the US and in Europe to be able to do all the calibration... already approx 10.000 modules done. As a consequence, the software applies corrections dedicated to both the hardware you are using (in every shooting conditions) and the content of the image.

As you can imagine, it has a cost and that is the reason why decided to do a split in 2 editions. Standard edition for entry level + mid level cameras and Elite edition which covers the FF cameras in addition of the perimeter of the Standard edition.

I think the problem comes down to the sensor. I'm not a boffin where this is concerned, but given the XPro-1 and XE-1 use an X-Trans sensor rather than the normal Bayer sensor, I assume the whole approach to processing RAW files differs considerably from other cameras.

If that is the case, DXO might consider it not viable to do all the coding for a little used sensor with possibly very different processing needs.

The little extract that designdog posted from the website seems most helpful in clarifying their intentions. Expect nothing soon.

Perhaps someone knows if there is some workaround, such as converting the RAW files, that would enable the DXO features.

To our knowledge and the feedbacks that we get from photographers and some people at Fuji itself ... there is absolutly no RAW converter that take advantage of the new Fuji sensors. I mean, not only supporting the new format but giving a satisfactory result.

For Amadou Diallo, please include Photo Ninja into the comparative as it is another excellent high-end converter.Corel AfterShot Pro would be a good idea too as it is the fastest of all.Some users need quality above all, others speed ...

Dont take it personally, but Photo Ninja is about as high-end or excellent as RT or most DCraw based "GUIs".

I tried it, but its too simple, quite slow, not special in any way and very "beta-ish".

Reality is that we have 3 main converters which actually are usable - LR/ACR, CP7, DXO8. Then there are semi-usable SilkyPix and ACDSee (which is sometimes suprisingly decent). And then all odds and oddities of RAW converting world, usually based on DCraw. Not sure if Photo Ninja is based on DCraw or not, but its not better then those based on it.

Special place belongs to highly modified DCraw based RPP (Mac only unfortunately) and ofc Aperture. RPP is bit clumsy, but can do tricks that nothing else can (like producing usable pics from SD1M and X-Pro 1 or X-E 1).

Pictus, thanks for the suggestions. It's likely we'll limit the raw converter shoot out to the three apps I mentioned, as they're the most popular and mature cross-platform options. But I'll consider whether we can incorporate Photo Ninja in some way, as many users are probably not aware the "Ninja" is now a raw converter as well.

Photo Ninja does carry "Beta-ish" mood on it , but not in Noise reduction nor Detail extraction department , IMO best RAW converter today . LR has polished , well designed UI but now it has to step down and make room for new player .

A kind remark;Within the program, under the drop down menu 'DxO modules' there is the possibility 'Suggest a DxO Optics Module to DxO Labs'.The 'Fuji X Pro 1' surely deserves to be added. The Fuji FinePix X100 module, after all, is also available.

@DesigndogHmmm... Funny coming from DxO. They're usually pretty reactive to provide support for raw files and optical correction, after all that's the main thing about the soft... I'm interested in the Fuji X series, and I've been using DxO OP7, so could you please post the link here (about DxO not supporting fuji, and why, if they give reasons), it might help other readers. Cheers

PS : I just checked and actually neither the X-Pro1 or the X-E1 are listed among the Fujifilm supported cameras for lens correction, so not there not supported, all right. But I could not find the additional details you mentioned, and that's the interesting part, I mean: short term? What is short term? Why?

@Nerval: I suspect the reason neither camera is supported is that they're not based on the standard Bayer filter (read wiki).

Unlike 99% of the other cameras on the market, Fuji use their own CFA pattern. The good news is that it doesn't produce Moiré in any appreciable way, and it increases luminance detail when compared to a camera with an AA filter (because you don't need one) - unfortunately the major drawback is that it seems to damage the colour resolution.

If you're shooting weddings or architectural shots the Fuji CFA may be a benefit; if you're shooting anything with fine colour detail it's really not a good idea...

The CFA choice makes a significant difference to the way you need to convert the RAW files into a conventional image. So, if you've spent a long time working on Bayer conversion routines, you'll need to start again to use the Fuji sensor layout - it requires significantly different processing.

I've used DXO Elite since version 1.0. That version worked wonders with 10D Canon images shot with the kit lens. Things change. I'm using Nikon (FF) and Pentax (MF) cameras now and although DXO has changed, some might say improved ...it does not handle Nikon D800 or Pentax Medium format files anywhere near as well as the instant improvement I found on 10D images that compelled me to buy the software in the first place.

I only bought the "Elite" version because of my D800. I should have chosen one of the many alternatives that not just handles Nikon files well but also works with the large files from a medium format camera.

We won't be updating it again and unless the company behind DXO changes its practice of charging for what should be a free incremental update, we won't be buying the software again, any time soon. This is a pity because I liked the way it automatically corrected lens anomalies.

I think the problem with the X-Pro1 etc. illustrates the flaw in the DXO business plan Whenever a new camera body comes out they should match it to all of the available lenses by their own stated standards. Similarly, when a new lens comes out they should, by rights, match it to all the available camera bodies. The problem is exponential getting bigger by the day. They have massively expanded their testing capability over recent months and still cannot find time to test low volume stars like the X-Pro1.

They are bound to go for the high volume Canons and Nikons etc.. before the less numerous models, to keep sales interest up.Then there is the question of when to drop old models from the analysis, after 3 years, 4 or maybe 10?

It's a bit disappointing that they do not bother taking up on the Fuji... This camera renders very fine details on the picture, so a support for the raw and lens distortion correction would have been nice.

I kinda worked out the bit about the colour filter array from the X-Pro1 review with the demosaicking issues and so on, but sill I liked it.

It seemed to do outstandingly well in terms of low light performance and dynamic range, but I did not know that it would cause the colour spectrum to deteriorate compared with a bayer array...

So thanks for the insights if I get the chance to borrow one at the local dealer I'll definitly take a look at that.

Hello to alexovic, Mescalamba and others that are concerned about about the anti piracy system used by DxO:

DxO is no longer using any PACE product. Hence, both DxO Optics Pro 7.5 and higher (therefore including version 8 :) ), DxO FilmPack 3.2 and higher and DxO ViewPoint are not using this kind of protection.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.

Fuji's latest firmware update for the GFX 50S adds two new features: a focus stacking mode, and a 35mm format mode that takes 30.5MP photos using the center portion of the camera's medium format sensor.

The crash has raised serious questions about 'startling safety gaps' in the doors-off photo tour industry. After a brief safety video, passengers are strapped in with heavy-duty harnesses and given only a knife to cut themselves loose in case of emergency.

For the first time in five years, Adobe is raising the price of some Creative Cloud subscription packages. The good news for photographers: The $10/month CC Photography plan that includes Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, and Lightroom Classic CC will stay the same.